The Buyer - Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Shortly after posting on Friday
January 11th, 2008, I get a call
from the Buckingham agent. He
claimed that he just received an
email indicating that I sent a letter.
He said, "they didn't get it." The
claim had the ring of b.s. but
I didn't tell him that. I wasn't in
the mood to argue. He asked
who I sent the letter to. I told him
EWCP's lawyer in Chatham and lawyer#1.

I had also sent a copy to EWCP/EWCC's
in-house lawyer in Calgary. He said,
"Oh its between the lawyers." I said,
yah, I guess so." He asked how things
were progressing. I said, "I don't know."
He said he would see what he could do.

I receive a letter in the mail from the
Buyer's Chatham lawyer. I noted the
lawyer tried to send the letter by fax
on Friday, but I didn't receive it. I
have to be home to accept the fax
manually.

I think if the Buyer is willing to
forego the confidentiality clause, and
not add anything more to the Agreement
that would cause further delay (so it can
figures out how to get out of payments
to me for the purchase price and
expenses) we can get a settlement. But
the Buyer has to act in good faith.

The Buyer showed bad faith in including
the Purchase Price in the confidentiality
clause (among other things). Deleting the
Purchase Price did not show good faith
as the Buyer did not intitate the removal
on its own. The inclusion of the Purchase
Price in the confidentiality clause was
was no mistake.

It doesn't make sense to me that the
Buyer acted in bad faith in including
the Purchase Price but acted in good
faith in including the Expenses. Since
both the Purchase Price and Expenses
appeared together in the Confidentiality
clause, it seem to me that one taints the
other. If the Purchase Price was included
in bad faith, then the Expenses was
included in bad faith too. Removing the
Purchase Price from the clause doesn't
remove the stench. It still stinks.

The Buyer is insisting that the
Confidentiality clause for the Expenses
must be included in the Agreement or
it will not sign the Agreement. If the
Buyer was acting in good faith it
would delete the clause and not use it
as an excuse not to reach a settlement.

My position on the confidentiality
clause is not new to the Buyer. I
reiterated again in my latest letter
in response, that I would not sign
an Agreement if there is a confidentiality
clause.

The Buyer is no longer concerned about
insurance. The lawyer wrote: :It
appears that your suggestion in paragraph
7 is a good one; that being Closing can
occur 60 days after the Agreement is signed
and that allows us to conduct proper
searches and eliminate any insurance
concerns."

Home Insurance - Corporate Buyer First Payee?

I see Habitat for Humanity is
next door again. It's kind of
ironic that the Buyer is helping
to build homes for the needy
while at the same time angling
to deliberately destroy my
property. It would seem to
me that deliberate destruction
of my property would be a
crime. I would also think
collecting insurance as a first
payee on property it deliberately
destroyed would be a crime too.

Did I mention that the corporate
Buyer wanted me to add it to my
insurance policy as a first payee,
if I were to remain in the house
after the closing date. The closing
date is the the date I would receive
the cashier's cheques from the Buyer
and the Buyer would receive the Deed
to the house in exchange, which it
would then register with the Ontario
Land and the also the date the Buyer
registers the Deed with the Ontario
Land Registry (OLR).

And, "No', the Deed shouldn't be
registered with OLR before the
closing date because, the Buyer
is falsely claiming that it paid
x amount for the property when in
fact it has not paid for the property.
The Seller doesn't receive funds
until the closing date indicated
in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.


It struck me as odd that a
corporation would want to be added
to my home insurance policy as first
payee on property that its itching
to destroy. Of course I would never
never add the Buyer to my home insurance
policy.

I decided to take a cab to work
On the way I had the cab
driver stop in front of the house at the
end of Cadillac Street. I was curious
which company was using the house
as offices. It was this house that
the directive to the WUC workers to shut
off the hydro came from. I was just going
to walk in and ask the first person I saw
the name of the company. I didn't have
to ask anyone. Posted on the door was a
notice indicating the name of the company
and hours of operation. It read,
East Windsor Cogeneration Centre.

See post below titled, 'Scapegoats: setting up
workers to take the blame?'

Scapegoats: setting up workers to take the blame?

Shortly after 9:00 a.m., two WUC
(Windsor Utilities Commission)
workers on property. I over hear
one say to the other, "there's
two meters.". I think nothing of
it. About an hour or so later I hear
the beeping sound of a vehicle
reversing. It's the WUC van leaving
the property.

Then around 10:30 a.m. I hear what
sounds like a big truck pull up to
the property.I look out my sliding
door window and there's a WUC worker
(different workers)looking directly
at me. He say's to his partner not
in my view, "there's someone here".
He had a puzzled look on face as
I'm sure I did too. I thought,
"What is going on here?" I give him
the hand gesture for, "Just a minute."
I get dressed, throw my coat on and
head outside.

The worker has a clip board in his
hand and I noticed the attached document
heading, "DEMOLITION". I notice the
address too. 2929 Riverside Drive
East, the house attached to mine.

The worker said he thought it was a
separate house. I didn't verbalize it,
but I thought it, "Yah, that's what
they wanted you to think too." The
WUC workers were not told that the
address provided to them was a semi-
detached and that someone still lived
in one of the houses. They were
directed by someone up the street
to shut the hydro off.

The worker said that there must have
been some confusion. He said if they
shut the hydro off, it would shut my
hydo off too. He said they wouldn't do
it. He said, "You're moving." I said,
"No. My house hasn't sold yet."
He said again and with even more certainty,
"We're not shutting the hydro off.
We'll have to go talk to him up the street."
I asked if it was someone from AECON.
He said, "No." He didn't reveal who it was.


Since they don't want to pay me for my
property, just have their attached property
demolished, destroying my property and
everything I own at the same time. The
kill two birds with one stone philosophy.
Then claim they didn't know anything about
it. They'd chalk it up to miscommunication
and blame those they setup to take the
fall - the workers.

EDIT IN

Okay, I hearing banging next door. It's
Habitat for Humanity. Their truck
is parked in the driveway. Not a good
sign.

I responded to EWCP's letter I received
on December 24th,2007, I haven't heard a
word. Perhaps, WUC and Habitat for Humanity
appearance is their response.

I'm wondering if I should contact my
insurance company.